3003 b288
evga 760
dead 2 cores ht off 1.85 V
benched at 2 cores for 2 hours
set 6 cores and ht on from bios
it boots but doesnot enter windows even default
it only enters bios
Printable View
3003 b288
evga 760
dead 2 cores ht off 1.85 V
benched at 2 cores for 2 hours
set 6 cores and ht on from bios
it boots but doesnot enter windows even default
it only enters bios
Guys, I had some issue with windows after using a different number of cores, but those were Windows issues, and every time I would put a new windows - no more problems. So do no take that as dead cpu :)
so far i have been lucky, been using gigabyte test1 bios on UD7 just 2 cores SPI benching.
retail 3003B396 i benched for around 15 hours on the cascade, then a further 5 hours on ln2.
Then have recently moved to ln2 benching for a further 4-5 hours with/without hyper threading results here
ill only bench 6 cores for now on though to be careful, i think i got lucky and dont want to kill this cpu :yepp:
If someone is searching a summer-job ... I think Intel RMA Department could have some offer's :D :D :D
ROFL, I think the opposite, they'll reject RMAs and fire any unnecessary RMA dpt. personnel :p:
I thought the same my good friendQuote:
Originally Posted by Monstru
I have tried to install new windows :(
No luck System resets when installation usb,cd,dvd boots
Exactly the same thing has happened to me yesterday...I can enter DOS / BIOS, but never boot into windows or windows installation screen...it just kept on rebootingQuote:
Originally Posted by tosunermc
And NO ONE here has yet to contact INTEL about this? Where is Dr. Who?
I would think that the best benchers in the world would have a direct line to Intel, and they can get on their asses and make a new stepping...
You're massively over-estimating our importance
My another retail box is dead out of box, never used... :D
hipro is right, i can confirm it ... my great Retail 5GHz on AIR SPi 32M stable is now dead, i am stupid i tryed benching with some disabled cores, after one day of benching is chip dead.
chip wasnot under extreme conditions, only 1.55V Vcore, 1.45V VTT, cause of death is disabling cores ... deadly mobo: MSI Xpower last Beta BIOS
Degradation was visible after few hours of benchong, like hipro said. From super stable 5 GHz, was 4,8 ... 4,4 ... 4 GHz, no booting to windows ... totally dead. Be carefull guys here.
ouch sorry to hear mate :(Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
cheers for the heads up...getting first 980 2 moro... :woot:
:welcome: first post \m/
Another Way to Kill Your 32nm Chip
Its Safe on motherboard and you sure that you lost only Your Chip not MB !
Overclock your Cpu under ln2 and then rise up to what you want then pick up your cpu block and wait for few min and the power on then you see 8.8. and you chip is currently dead ha ha ha nice to left 1000 $ in few min :D
i Burn Two chip with this job and its work 100%
The Mb is X58a-ud7
and the cpu batch is 3003B3xx - 3005F7xx
What happened to your friends cpu lol, Did u buy him a new one?
Wow i see more people reporting this but hey i bench my chip hard 2 core no HT then again 6 core with HT no problems ...... weird. my batch 3003B242 i can boot at 6.144ghz no problems :)
what motherboard? tripple chan?Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle fester
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaRaN
What do you mean with pick up your cpu block ???
Sounds like you take the cooler off and burn up the CPU while its heavily overclocked and overvolted. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by splmann
yep,and thats not just a recipe for killing 32nm cpu's,im sure he can kill any cpu doing this:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Linuxfan
well I am sure now that I killed my X5660:mad:
I disabled HT ran some benches and then switched to mobo's and after that it became harder and harder to boot into windows without BSOD 124 until I could not even boot at stock settings or any voltage.
Whats weird is that I can boot in to the bios but that's about it:shrug:
so you just disabled HT but left all cores enabled?
intel needs to address this
Maybe you guys are just giving too much voltage to a poor 32nm chip...
why you tried not only cores coupling ? Crazy bug :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewie_77
I really doubt it, I never gave mine over 1.45-1.47 vcore for short amounts of time, with my max vtt being 1.415 and that was only for some 2D benches.
Radaja you got it simply disabling HT and running a few benches on a new board (UD7). I even tried switching boards and no dice:shrug:
well this is getting real scary.now i guess i wont disable HT(EVER)
or run with less than 6 cores(EVER).
i think i will be fine with basic OCing(4.5GHz to 4.8GHz) on water
with voltages in the 1.40v to 1.50v range(I HOPE)
not for 45nm if you done for 45nm cpu you do heavy oc and then start with out under cold chip in not boot and after boot show you only overclocking fail i test on 920 - 3540 - 3570 and same on all
but in 32nm sure its kill. i test on 670 too and its dead and its cool when you where in iran and there is no RMA for chip you can play football with dead chip :D
you dont need heavy oc for 32nm just 5.5 fine with 1.700 vcore and vtt upper than 1.440 and work 100% and you kill your 32nm chip easy
Running an SR2 with X5650's with HT disabled, all Cores enabled, crunching Rosetta, NO PROBLEM.
this problem is related to disabling cores, not HT ...
I realise that, but someone mentioned earlier that he didn't disable any cores, only HT and killed his chips, so I thought I'd throw in my experance with HT off on the Xeons to show that I haven't killed my chips(yet, knock on wood)Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
If you disable cores in windows, will it be the same? Maybe it has something to do with bios related problems while disabling?Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
Can confirm its happening, I read the thread, and since I had been able to run 2 cores before without killing it I ignored it. But now after 2 weeks of testing on air(where I ran 2 cores) my 6Ghz chip is not able to run on 6 cores even @ 5Ghz. Would try and boot it with 1 core and kill it fast now, :p
Oh!!! and disabling HT doesnt degrade it(atleast not visible in a couple of weeks of testing, maybe it would degrade it after prolonged use)
Ok, guys, I asked this before but everyone ignored me...
So I'll ask it again.
WHY HAS NO ONE BOTHERED TO CONTACT INTEL ABOUT THIS? And if you have, have they taken note of this problem?
Intel actually has links to the enthuiast community now, and some of you DO know people in the right places. If anyone wants this SERIOUS BUG (and this is why I held off on a 980x) fixed in time for the 990X, with a new stepping, then people NEED TO get Intel's attention. This is probably the MOST serious errata I've ever seen in a CPU, even worse than the Pentium 4's SNDS/GNDS problems at 1.65+ voltages...
I want to buy a 990x, but I sure WON'T buy one if you can kill the chip from disabling cores....some games don't even like multiple cores...
I`m also wondering if the problem exists if the cores are disabled from windows, someone to try it ? :D.
Also wondering if this problem will still exist in the coming soon i7 970.
I've just got a new retail 980X (batch 3013A524) in the UK. Still waiting for my motherboard. I am hesitating whether to test it or not...
has anyone experienced when loading optimized defaults with a 980x
the vdimm keeps getting set at 1.79v?i noticed when i loaded the Odefault
it keep setting the vdimm at 1.79v and one other person i talked too had it do it too.
is this some problem with the microcode of the bios's for the 980x's?any insight into this?
Continuing testing with 1C/1T, current setup under water.
In this test I didn't exceed Intel's specifications safe limits, which means a maximum Vcore of 1.375v.
In that way I wanted to see if there is going to be any sign of degradation or a killing of my cpu with what Intel has issued in its data sheet, here it is an abstract of it:
"Absolute Maximum and Minimum Ratings
Table 2-6 specifies absolute maximum and minimum ratings, which lie outside the
functional limits of the processor. Only within specified operation limits can functionality
and long-term reliability be expected.
At conditions outside functional operation condition limits, but within absolute
maximum and minimum ratings, neither functionality nor long-term reliability can be
expected. If a device is returned to conditions within functional operation limits after
having been subjected to conditions outside these limits, but within the absolute
maximum and minimum ratings, the device may be functional, but with its lifetime
degraded depending on exposure to conditions exceeding the functional operation
condition limits.
At conditions exceeding absolute maximum and minimum ratings, neither functionality
nor l ong-term reliability can be expected. Moreover, if a device is subjected to these
conditions for any length of time then, when returned to conditions within the
functional operating condition limits, it will either not function or its reliability will be
severely degraded.
Although the processor contains protective circuitry to resist damage from Electro-
Static Discharge (ESD), precautions should always be taken to avoid high static
voltages or electric fields."
1C/1T, 1M Super Pi stable @ 4.54 GHz Vcore @ 1.35v
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...Vcore1350v.jpg
1C/1T, 32M Super Pi stable @ 4.54 GHz, Vcore @ 1.35v
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...Vcore1350v.jpg
1C/1T Prime95 1 hour stable @ 4.54 GHz, Vcore @ 1.35v
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...hourstable.jpg
After finishing those tests I restarted, entered into bios, set everything back at default and booted into windows, everything went fine.
Searching a way to test if there was any sign of degradation I used Cinebech.
Everything @ default with 6C/12T :
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...nebench115.jpg
Not any sign of degradation in the performance of the cpu.
I would understand those killings under extreme overclocking conditions with ln2 and high Vcore but want really happened and George's friend lost his cpu by just enabling 1C/1T?:shrug:
I don't know if Microcode Update Revision plays a significant role but mine is 5,
check it out with Everest.
when you load optimized defaults does it set you memory vdimm at 1.79v?
i dont know if its my memory or my 980x or my MB that is doing this.
my Microcode Update Revision is 5 also.
my ET6 will show 1.50v vdimm after loading O-defaults but in everest
and the bios in the health status page(current temps and voltages)
it shows 1600MHz 1.79v,but in MIT page it shows auto at 1.50v vdimm and
memory frequency at 1333MHz?
tsan's CPU died a couple of days ago by playing with it with 2 cores as well....It's not getting into windows now with all cores plus HT.... :(
George, as far as I know both you and tsan have a EVGA Classified E760 . Your cpus died on it right ? Maybe is a motherboard's related problem ?
No, my good one died by playing with 2 cores on a GIGABYTE X58 UD7 mobo.... :(
Then my other one died on an 760 mobo.
Yesterday I tested another one (crappy) on the 760 with 1 core and then with 2 cores and then full cores on the 760 and nothing happent.....It works fine...... :)
So I think that it's CPU's related problem....."Something" inside the cpu dies/degrades VERY FAST when palying with 2 or 1 cores without HT and this doesn't happen to all cpu's..... :(
My other one is still OK...... :)
The Andre Yang killer CPU ? Good to hear it's still okay :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
@ default I get a vdimm of 1.6v 1333MHz, with 9-9-9-24-1T, the exact same reading I get with a dmm, at boot time and also within windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by radaja
@ XPM I get a vdimm of 1.64v 1866MHz with 7-8-7-20-2T, the same reading I get with a dmm again at boot and windows environment.
ok thanks.i just cant figure this out
my ram spd doesnt even have 1600 1.79v
so i think its my board thats confused
With all due respect, and mad props to your skillz, this thread is almost as stupid as the SNDS thread from years ago. Correction, his processor didn't die it, just like yours', was KILLED. That pretty much goes for all of the destroyed and or damaged processors.:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
""In this test I didn't exceeded Intel's specifications safe limits, which means a maximum Vcore of 1.375v.""
Then feeding one core how much voltage and still expecting it to live? I really hope any company, not just Intel, seeing their products abused tell folks killing these processors to piss-off!
Excuse me, but if you can throw your arrogance out the window, SNDS cost me THREE northwood processors. Only one ever saw the "max" vcore of 1.7v. I had one that SLOWLY degraded with just a vcore of 1.625v which was considered safe by everyone. Lost over 50 mhz on the max overclock with just that vcore.
(BTW when I mean "cost", I mean the processors worked, but they were worthless for overclocking)
Correction: you can call it " GNDS" (gradual) instead of sudden, as SNDS is basically complete death. I never had that--just "Gradual" degradation.
I even saw just 1.6v degrade a northwood...My P4 EE has degraded slightly with just 1.60v only...(and that's without any sort of vdroop mod !); it won't even do 3.6 ghz stable now, when it used to do 3.7...
I have the ability to get a new 980X at about half price so I am trying to get a clear picture here.
If I leave all cores enabled, and HT enabled I should be pretty safe?
yes, and ht off with all cores turned on is also very safe (i have done this a lot).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aberration
I get your point about useless for overclocking but some folks were warned! My own system was a 2.6GHz running at 3.46GHz with 1.575v. 1.65v got me to 3.6GHz so I didn't take the chance for 140MHz LOL! My Computer ran like that for about 1.5 years until it was replaced by an Athlon 3500+. The person I sold it to is still using it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Falkentyne
Why? I was told if the core needed more than 1.6v, it wasn't going to do much more anyway. 1.6+ = diminishing returns on all 5 Northwood I played with.
Yet, most folks here complaining about SNDS were using wayyyyyyyy over 1.7v and the thread is still here showing crazy folks running 1.8, 1.85 and even 1.9v after Volt Mods LOL! Then wondering why their processors died! Yours wasn't indicative of what was going on with the folks here killing processors and saying they died! You have a heart attack and die, you get shot or get hit by a car, you got killed! They were hitting it with a MAC truck:rofl:.
Both that 2.6GHz Northwood and the Athlon3500+ are still being used by the folks I sold them to.:up: Why would anyone not decrease the voltage before sending full voltage to one of four cores? With or without HT is moot. Killing processors this way has absolutely NO intrinsic value at all. Speaking of useMaybe some useless LN Xtreme overclocking stunt?
The name of the thread got it half way right, it is Kill your i7 980X at once but the RMA it part. I said I hoped someone at Intel was watching not for support but to see this as a form of fraud! This IS NOT a legit reason for an RMA! You may as well do this!
http://dl.maximumpc.com/galleries/co.../spark_415.jpg
Oh wait, never mind, the way I understand it this one still worked afterward-s:D Calling for a Fix for something that ain't broke is also kind of lame IMHO!:rofl: Now folks with legit RMA's get lumped in with this lunacy! :rofl:
Read the first two pages of this thread before questioning the whether the RMAs were legit or not.
CPU dying on stock by only shutting a couple of cores off sure as hell sounds as legitimate RMA to me.
As does to all guys who got the CPUs which suffer from the same phenomenon. Whether they applied excessive voltage
is irrelevant. They were unable to shut cores off from the beginning, therefore it limited the CPUs functionality, regardless
of whether disabling any of the cores seems reasonable or not.
So what's the deal here. Are you guys able to get an RMA on your processors? I was going to buy one, but this is putting me off. I'm not a bencher and was only going to use it on Air Cooling so I'm thinking it should be OK?
If I've got this right, don't disable any cores or HT?
Has anyone worked out the actual reason? When people are using only 1 core is that core getting the total voltage you had set for 6 cores to that 1 single core?
There is no such thing as 'total' voltage. Eg. 1,225V is not divided by the number of cores, but instead every core
gets the same vCore you set in the BIOS.
Yeah that is what I thought until other people in the thread confused me. Either way even if you run it on stock volts with only 1 core it still stuffs up right? If that is correct then Intel should RMA those processors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erklat
It's definitely not about voltage, and of course the voltage IS NOT divided by the core count :)
As for the issue, some CPUs have it ( e.g. die immediately/fast/relatively fast with disabled cores/ht to 1/2 ) and some don't ( some CPUs can simply run 1C/1T for ages ).
Nobody knows why it happens or the source, not even if Intel is investigating this at all.
You can get a RMA for your CPU for sure ( no way to detect it AFAIK ).
Correct, the voltage is not divided by the core count.
I've run with 1C/1T either @ stock or overclocked (within Intel's specifications safe limits) and my cpu didn't die.
I didn't even see any sign of degradation in the performance of the cpu.
So definately the problem doesn't apply to all Gulftowns.
Soon I'll change mb and continue testing.
I'll post when I'll have any new results.:yepp:
So what about all the guys who are NOT having any problems, you think they're fibbing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Erklat
I did read the first two pages, then the whole thread before I posted. We are NOT talking about processors dying from NORMAL use. These processors were killed so they DON'T really qualify for a RMA. What was going here to start this thread isn't close to what you wrote or what the thread is even about. These are NOT legit reasons for a VAR or etc... to RMA not according to Donnie27 but anyone selling and buying should already know and FULLY understand. Something being abused this way is NOT covered by any VAR. EVERYONE is warned if run products out of spec and overclock, you do so at your OWN RISK, you void the muth%#$&ing warranty:rolleyes:
The only legit question is if Single Threaded apps caused a problem or not. That was the only reason I read the whole thread before I posted. If single threaded apps with features (power states-speed step and etc...) turned on is causing problems then there should be a Fix.;)
The core can't perform correctly if you follow many of the overclocking guides that tell you to disable IMPORTANT features and or settings. These very settings keep these kinds of things from happening, but I bet you think that is irrelevant as well, right?:D
Now I am scared of enabling C-state of the 980X because it will perhaps close some cores under single thread applications...
So, anyone kill any chips WITHOUT first running them under extreme conditions?? If someone reports a CPU at stock dying with cores disabled, that's one thing, but all I'm seeing here is people pushing the chips to points where they'd already die, and then disabling cores after the fact and then blaming it on that...
So you are proposing that disabling c-states, speedstep and the rest of advanced features induce malfunctions like this? Well that's new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Guess that's why they come disabled by default when I load system optimized settings :shrug:
First post. CPU pwnd via telephone on stock :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gautam
I will do that on first POST with my next new 980X Gautam.
im game as well, rma back tomorrow :)
After testing with 1C/1T on an ASUS P6T DELUXE V2, I continued testing on a Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD4P (rev. 1.0), bios version F13.
Again in this test I didn't exceed Intel's specifications safe limits, which means a maximum Vcore of 1.375v. With this way I wanted to eliminate the risk of having a dead cpu due to extreme overvolting but also to check if what Intel states as safe limits, are really safe. Current setup under water.
1M SUPER PI 1C/1T @ Default
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...1C-1Tstock.jpg
1M SUPER PI 1C/1T @ 4.53 GHz Vcore 1.35v
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...zVcore135v.jpg
32M SUPER PI 1C/1T @ 4.53 GHz Vcore 1.35625v ( a small increase in Vcore to keep it stable)
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...ore135625v.jpg
PRIME 95 (1 hour) 1C/1T @ 4.53 GHz Vcore 1.35625v
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...ore135625v.jpg
After finishing I restarted, set everything @ default,booted into windows and ran Cinebech in order to check if there was any sign of degradation.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...NCHDefault.jpg
Again not any sign of degradation.
So testing with two different boards doesn't make any difference and also the problem doesn't apply to all Gulftowns.
I still have a healthy, working cpu either with one or all cores enabled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erklat
Turning off power gating tech and if the Voltage is left high from overclocking Previously, stock MHz speed is MOOT! I'm proposing NOT turning off Speedstep and Other tech that are features most folks paid to have. I think I need to edit the earlier post:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I asked was the problem caused at STOCK settings? I mean ALL STOCK settings with those features enabled.
When I used to overclock and I changed a Voltage, I'd change the voltage, save, reboot to enable that voltage then re-setup for stock settings.
I only wondered if the BIOS was set up in stock mode. Then the processor kicked into Turbo with one core running one thread, then it died? If that's the Case Intel needs to step in. NOT because a few of us Geeks created an unreal scenario. Why in the hell would I buy a 6 core Processor to disable 4 or 5 cores?? Oh brother, I'd be soooo worrriieed if I bought one, NOT!:rofl:
The key phrase is in BOLD. The folks I disagree with are saying it died, I'm saying THEY KILLED IT. My old 9550 my wife's using hasn't even sniffled yet! I don't know anyone talking about problems with these CPUs while running them not only at stock speed, but many over 4GHz. IMHO, there's too much of the "I need 4.5+" to be happy folks" killing all kinds of Processors. Then there has to be some FUD gorilla marketing tied in as well. If I'm an i980X owner, it doesn't even cross my mind to try this or anything else as LAME! No company should be held responsible for these kinds of *tweaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by KaminoReal
So... to sum it up:
It's motherboard independent and it seems as it is cpu relevant only... well, did someone said "subthreshold leakage" :shrug:
So you have two types of CPUs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
1.) the ones who survive disabling the cores both stock and overclocked
2.) the ones who die both on stock and overclocked.
We don't have a single one report of CPUs surviving on stock but then dying
when overclocked. I can hardly be led to believe the overclocking is an issue here that causes them to malfunction.
Both power gating tech and disabling of the cores should be put at users disposal. I might wish to disable the couple of the cores to
reduce power consumption when doing some less CPU intensive tasks,
I don't care. Just because it seems like an unreasonable scenario I don't expect it to die.
Same goes for the power gating tech. Seems Intel doesn't have any grudge against users disabling it for years now.
There is few DEAD chips over Gigabyte GOOC 2010 EU final competition ... lot of degradation, few DEAD CPUs.
Who seems like the murderer?:rolleyes: MB? Volt(Current)?Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
Tried this on 2 980X's on 2 mobos.
Sofos1990's 3013A540:
eVGA X58 SLI Classified E760 = would work and boot into windows at both 1c1t & 2c2t just fine.
Rampage III Extreme = would work and boot into windows at both 1c1t & 2c2t just fine.
my 3020A457:
eVGA X58 SLI Classified E760 = would work and boot into windows at 2c2t just fine, would POST but hang before getting into the BIOS or at the "launching operating system" screen at 1c1t.
Rampage III Extreme = would work and boot into windows at 2c2t just fine, would POST but hang before getting into the BIOS or at the "launching operating system" screen at 1c1t.
None of them showed any signs of degradation, or died during those tests.
Again I'm not sure of what combination KILLED the processor. The key word is KILLED here. The processor didn't die is all I was saying. There is no malfunction when you're creating the problem:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Erklat
No, but he does~!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
Hehehehe! Weak attempt at FUD LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
It's not FUD man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I've seen one getting killed just by saving & exiting the BIOS with 1c1t.
My chip won't boot/work at 1c1t, so there's indeed something wrong with some chips at least.
I have found this thread incredibly amusing (though sucks to those who lost some processors!)
But I have to say something to Donnie27...
Regardless of whether a chip has been OC'ed or not there is an apparent problem with at least "some" of these chips and/or MB combinations. In the first post one died that was never overclocked and was on air cooling. The ability to disable certain features and cores is something that is availible in most to all MB's and is in the Intel spec. No where does it state from Intel that disabling cores or features is out of the norm or warranty voiding.
If a chip was never OC'ed and never taken out of spec and simply had cores disabled (which is the case of the first post over the phone)... and then died? Definite defect. And who knows what else could be wrong?
If you are going to go as far as saying that changing a setting in bios (disabling a feature for example) is something that is not covered under warranty... then the Intel warranty is null and void under every condition in which the system was not built and configured by an authroized Intel tech.
That thought is simply ludicris.
Link to Intel saying running 1 core is alright please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bun-Bun
I didn't say what you said was FUD. This is;Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
I should have used a separator or something, sorry my bad!Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Again, the system is not changing the settings, USERS ARE! I know 10 folks using this processor, 6 have them overclocked. Not one has died but none of the users are disabling cores. Now if any of those folks not doing this had any of the processors Die, I'd join in on this.
So if I gave my processor too much voltage (available), and too high of a multiplier (unlocked version that 980X is) (available) and killed it, then that's Intel's fault as well? OTOH, maybe Intel should warn folks not to do this"* so I'm NOT totally opposed to what you're saying. **This = disable all but one core.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bun-Bun
Maybe motherboard BIOS makers should add a warning in RED when these problem causing settings are used or remove them. All I'm saying is that the action that caused this problem isn't likely to affect 99.998% of folks using this processor. They are not dieing, they are being killed=pQuote:
Originally Posted by Intel Support
Here's what started some of this;
He's not talking about shutting down all but one core. He states that even shutting down two cores as well. There is not a Phenomenon because 1/999,980th of the one million or so 980x sold will have someone disabling all but one Core IMHO. Now if this was something the OS or an app was causing, then I'd go along with you guys!Quote:
As does to all guys who got the CPUs which suffer from the same phenomenon. Whether they applied excessive voltage is irrelevant.
and
CPU dying on stock by only shutting a couple of cores off
Doesn't matter if it is software or a bios change that caused it. It is still a defect.
By your logic going into bios to apply proper voltages and other various settings because AUTO incorrectly does so (esspecially for RAM) is warranty voiding.
I am sorry Donnie but you are making yourself look like a fool.
Disabling cores is not taking a processor out of spec. Hyperthreading is a feature known to cause issues in certain situations and can be disabled (some OEM's disable it by default or hard lock it off in their BIOS). Are you going to tell me that if my processor died with HT off that I killed it? Disabling cores is no different. Esspecially when Intel's own features do this as a power save feature.
If I disable unused integrated devices (fireware, LAN, etc) and something goes wrong; I killed it then as well?
I am not here to replace google. Various documentation states this is an option and no where does it state it is warranty voiding nor out of "spec".Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Really everyone should be asking you to provide a link to Intel saying that disabling cores is bad and warranty voiding.
Curious I know they ran 1 in this test they seemed okay unless they didn't really. Maybe it's certain chips http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...rcraft-2-use/1
Ok.. was running stock @ 1.14 volts... and then i overclocked to running 25x160 at only 1.20v Cpu and 1.25v Vtt , VDIMM 1.62 on UD3R and Cpu was fine..
Moved it to UD7 and i cant load windows no more... BSOD saying Unrecoverable Hardware Error. Then Tried it on a RIIE as well.. Same BSOD. This thing just died !! :(
Moved back to my 920's and both systems function perfectly so i know its not any busted hardware on either system.
Batch 3005F584.. Now im sad :(
Never tried disabling any cores or anything. The highest this chip has seen is 1.27v Vcore and 1.25v VTT
Disabling HT alone isn't messing up processors and I never said anything about that anyway. Keep digging a deeper hole? Yea, you're sorry alright. Again, I said if the processor was doing this (shutting down completely the cores and HT) itself or even software, I'd agree! How in the hell did you miss that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bun-Bun
Your example/s makes you look desperate! Here's my saying just what you accused me of not saying!
Your reply is about the most ding bat-est thing I've read in about 5 months here. I didn't pick any extreme example or try twist crap like you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Here's an easier one, link to someone disabling two cores and killing a Processor as Erklat said? This was right after xpatar posted two examples of his not dieing! He still posted what he did.
There are thousands of possible settings in the BIOS that can kill your system. According to you, those are all defects as well. If you need links to prove that, then you need to stay the hell out of the BIOS!:ROTF:
There are folks in this thread who were both successful and unsuccessful. Some folks here acted like it was Certain death for all 980X, sheesh! I said If I'm a 980X owner, I'm not worried about this at all=PQuote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Hell, maybe I spoke too soon:shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Toolius
If you actually read my post I was comparing disabling HT to disabling cores. Same thing. (same as in they are features that can be turned off in the BIOS) It is an option provided by Intel and is not said anywhere in any of their documentation that disabling cores is a bad thing or that it void's the warranty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
If your ok with disabling HT but not cores then you need to really step back and think about your logic.Quote:
Disabling cores is not taking a processor out of spec. Hyperthreading is a feature known to cause issues in certain situations and can be disabled (some OEM's disable it by default or hard lock it off in their BIOS). Are you going to tell me that if my processor died with HT off that I killed it? Disabling cores is no different. Esspecially when Intel's own features do this as a power save feature.
Also I never claimed this was an issue that all chips have. But we have enough evidence in this thread to say there is an obvious issue affecting at least some chips and MB combinations. The very first post debunks most of what you are trying to say.
Yes there are options in the bios that if set incorrectly can kill things. However the spec's are clearly documented about what the proper settings and limits are and if you stay within the specs then there is no issue as far as warranty is concerned. No where in the spec's does it specifiy that Disabling cores or HT is warranty voiding or something that is "bad".
I am useing extreme examples to poke at the obvious holes in your argument that you obviously are the only one failing to see.
EDIT:
I will agree with you on one point. If someone read's this thread and does "tests" it by disabling cores and the chip dies in the process, then yes you could say they killed the chip as they knew before hand that some have before. However I still think they have every right to a RMA as it is obviously a defect in the chips that has gone unoticed to this point.
I wonder if you know what errata is?
First, your last line is silly, immature and I ain't going there anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bun-Bun
This is something that needs to be looked at by Intel, BIOS and Board Makers. That seems to be the biggest disagreement and the point missed here. Intel didn't manufacture the BIOS and Board as well. The Problem is too random and you nor I know where the hell the errata or glitch originates that might be causing this. Now want to continue talk or hurl barbs?
I'm NOT saying there is nothing wrong! If you have enough expertise to prove this is solely an "Hey, Intel better fix this" issue or errata, please explain?
I already wrote that maybe Intel and etc.. should be warning folks to NOT perform this test.
There is no certain or known point of malfunction. Now that's the point you and the other guy aren't getting. You're so busy trying to make your point that you missing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
All I meant was that this was too easy to avoid, not that it wasn't an issue. To end this, should every Processor, not just 980X, be able to run One Core with HT enabled or disabled and not die, emphatically YES! Is that clear enough:)?
How is it immature? It was a legitimate question because until your most recent post you were not making any sense at all.
After your most recent post I don't see any disagreement between us at all. Before it sounded like you were saying this was not a problem and Intel should not be responsible for replacing chips that the end user fried. Which is completely not the case. A user has no reason to believe disabling cores is going to fry their chip unless they read this thread. And honestly knowing this I would be wary of having spent that kind of cash and have something so simple fry it. What else could go wrong?
And I don't think anyone has been saying that this is solely Intel's responsibility. Many suggestions and hypotheses have been directed at different boards and board manufacturers.
However it is Intel's responsibility to work with the board manufacturers in solving this problem as it is their design.
First, number 4 is what I've said all alone so I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bun-Bun
#1See anything wrong with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
#3There are no 980X dying at an alarming rate:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by chispy's
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_oslo
Quote:
Originally Posted by prznar1
There are least 10 others saying nothing about BIOS or Motherboards even as others pointed out that either could be or might be causing the problem as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Falkentyne's Avatar
Now see Post number #72? Other posters insinuated, some just flat laid the blame squarely on the Processor. No one has figured out the exact cause. But the first post was saying, "Hey, if you don't have a good overclocker, try this to get an RMA?:shakes: That's why I said what I said about NO RMA. It wasn't limited to just running one core.
I said I hoped some one at Intel and some VAR/s were watching folks doing this to get better overclocking processors. This kind stuff makes it harder for folks with legit failures. Then drives up costs.
#2, I'd have ZERO problems buying a 980X when it comes to worrying about this Issue=P I'd realistically not buy one simply because of its high price LOL!
#3 See above?
I'm sure we can discuss the problem without barbs!:up:
Edit to make bold 1 important point!
Donnie man, lay back a bit and leave the door open for a different opinion from another person, a person who's into extreme overclocking for example.
The 980X's are dying at an alarming rate without trying to kill them in any way ( excessive voltage, cores/hyperthreading disabling, etc ).
Especially the F batches ( FPO: xxxxFxxx chips ).
to make my long story short,these 980x chips are just weak in the knees.
+1 right on spot Billy :up: ,thank you :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
While you might want to not believe people saying their 980x is dying because of disabling HT/cores and think they're just jumping on the bandwagon so they can get a better OCing CPU, it's enough to prevent me from wanting to ever test this. Quite a few very reliable people have posted in here with their results already.
Prove it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
I didn't try to close any door except for borderline fraud LOL! In fact, I tried to Open at least two. This reminds me of the whole Creative vs VIA bug debate. The folks on VIA's side had to eat their words.
If they are dying without folks trying to kill them, then they should be RMA-ed and Intel needs investigate the problem/s. Where's the disconnect?
No need, there are several examples on XS.org already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Lots of Q3QP's dying at 1.35V & 1.4V on water.
3005F chips dying on air/water at low voltages or degrading heavily, same batch chips dying in less than 3 hours of extreme overclocking without pushing the voltages at all.
My chip dying after 3 hours of soft LN2 overclocking, tsan's 3013A lasting 50+ hours at 1.93V+ on LN2 while others die within minutes or 1-3 hours at 1.8V.
My other 980X which seems to have degraded just by disabling HyperThreading to try 6 cores/6 threads ( lost 600+ MHz in 1 minute! ).
Whether you like it or not, the 980X's are fragile, some very fragile some generally fragile and some seem indestructible ( keyword = seem ).
We've been pushing chips to the limits & over the limits in the recent and not so recent past, but I can't recall another retail Intel chip ( Core 2 Duo ? Core 2 Quad ? Core 2 Extreme ? Pontium 4 ? ) dying so easily and in big quantities like the 980X's.
If you stop looking for bad people who kill their CPUs on purpose via excessive voltages ( 5V+ ), you'll see that there are plenty of people with dead CPUs who didn't want to kill them in any way, but they did die.
You think I wanted to kill my 6500MHz 6c12t AquaMark 3 980X ? Hipro5's 5.9GHz Vantage chips ( 2 of them died ) ? HiCookie's 6.9GHz monster ?
Quote me saying 980X is strong or not fragile? The only real issue above is simply disabling Hyperthreading. How this processor did overclocking compared to others is MOOT! I didn't post anything about how good or bad of an overclocker it is. I didn't post anything about voltage or anything else but to say it isn't warrantied! Some of these processors will and are expected to die a NORMAL death, killing it and calling it a death isn't the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
Got nothing to do with if I like it or not, I don't even own one. I said nothing about them being indestructible, what made you think that? I'm not looking for bad people, I'm looking at borderline fraud or irresponsible folks as the title states! It's why I wouldn't worry about buying one except for its price! NOTHING you've said changes that.
Oh wait, I'm not an extreme overclocker and sorry I'll not fix it til its broke then blame a perfectly good piece of hardware. There are more who posted without a problem than those who did. I must have missed the posts where to quote you and the other guy ""The 980X's are dying at an alarming rate without trying to kill them in any way"". Without trying to kill them means not frackin' overclocking LOL!:rofl: Maybe that's where the disconnect is?
I think this sums what why I Posted!
That my friend is for NO REASON. Overclocking as in Over Volting and etc.. isn't "no reason" and isn't warrantied. Call it a weak overclocker, a sissy to tweak and etc.. and I'm not posting here.:ROTF: Hell, I might agree with you. I jumped them for the bad contact pins on Socket 1156, a REAL issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by mk-ultra
Last but not least, I'd love to see some engineer nail down what's causing running 1 core and or disabling HT BUG, if its the Processor, Mobo or BIOS.
I think you not getting bz's point that the 980 is fragle not a good chip to try to run 24/7 and sneak some sub zero results at sane volts.
i may have the same story as a few :(
my i7 920 d0 was treated well(max 1.50vcore vvt1.30) over the yr or so i had it,100+ hours of dice/ln2 it still runs the same clocks on air/sub zero it did when i first got it :)
now the 980x i just sent back was treated well in my book(max 1.70vcore vvt1.45)ht run off 99% of the time always 6 real cores.
maybe 40-50 hrs dice/ln2 and was degraded to sht :p:....weak chip
IMHO never had any intel chip this weak.
What do you think my point is if you think I'm not getting his, I'm interested?Quote:
Originally Posted by cowie
I just said;
"Overclocking as in Over Volting and etc.. isn't "no reason" and isn't warrantied. Call it a weak overclocker, a sissy to tweak and etc.. and I'm not posting here. Hell, I might agree with you."
Example!
I never said I didn't believe these folks. I said I wasn't sure what was causing these processors to die. Not that they weren't dying or that simply disabling HT wouldn't kill them. On that same note, anyone thinking they are guarantied overclocking (anything) is a fool!Quote:
Originally Posted by skankinred
Your missing the point Donnie. They are not saying they are weak overclockers. They are saying these chips degrade fast without going to extreme voltages.
This combined with disabling core issue, there seems to be an apparent problem or weakness to these chips.
The comments in this thread are coming from people with years of OC'ing experience. If they are seeing a trend (or lapse in trend) then I am inclined to believe them that these are weak chips. This is not just from an OC'ing sense. If a chip degrades that fast from mild voltages being applied then that chip is going to die faster regardless in comparison to other chips from Intel.
And given the price tag along with this particular chip... that is unacceptable.
Capable OC is one thing. Chip degradation is another.
Before I just throw my hands up in the air in frustration, I've been overclocking since 1993 so please don't try to preach to me, OK? Just because I'm NOT overclocking now doesn't mean I haven't:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bun-Bun
Bold first. Chips dying when tweaked and stock settings is another as well. If I'm paying that much money, I'm not buying one to monkey with=P If these are simply dying without provocation, then I'm worried if I bought one.
None of the links for proof you posted were to stock settings, 1.4v for the core is not safe, 1.8v on the DRR3 is as well. Link me to, "man, I did nothing to my, INTEL< AMD<nVidia, ATI or etc.. item and it died" complaints.? Please?
The only issue I'd be worried about is simply disabling Hyperthreading while running stock settings.
Why Intel? ""anyone thinking they are guarantied overclocking (anything) is a fool!"" Not limited to Intel or even to processors as I meant Video cards as well.
First I haven't linked anything so not sure how your refuting my supposed links...
Secondly not only are you failing to see the point of others in this thread you are failing to see the purpose of extreme edition processors. They are meant to be tweaked and OC'ed. Why would you spent that amount of money and then not push it? A complete and utter waste of money. And regardless of whether you have OC'ed before or not you are still failing to see these points.
Finally, a chip that degrades that fast when pushed compared to other models will degrade faster then normal at stock settings as well. I haven't seen anyone specifically complaining about not reaching certain OC's but rather seeing that their chip is degrading so fast. Personally I would want to push my chip to see if it was one that was degrading fast as there is no way I would want to keep such a weak chip after having paid that much for it.
And the posters in this thread are talking about degradation that can been seen immediately, not over time. This IS a problem.
Yes, just as you're failing to see mine! You're Failing to get overclocking and tweaking out of you argument and or off your brain. That's where you're screwing up. I really couldn't care less about tweaking something and I'm only concerned with STOCK! I said weak if you overclock how many times now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bun-Bun
Oh excuse me, you didn't link, you **Quoted** and what you *Quoted** isn't matching what you're saying. You **QUOTED** no one running at stock. Folks running at stock speed aren't have their processors die at an alarming rate and that's my point. What you guys are doing wouldn't change my buying decisions at all=P Again the only legit problem I saw was disabling Hyperthreading causing this to happen, TO SOME folks. Other than that, you've shown NOTHING to back your hypothesis other than to guess at best.
You haven't seen anyone complaining about how high (OC), I haven't seen anyone complaining while running at UNTWEAKED stock speed either. I haven't seen anything here to prove this is the Processor, Motherboard's hardware or BIOS or a combination of some or all of them. I'm NOT saying what it is, I don't know! It might just be some of the processors are bad.
I haven't quoted anyone but you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
If a processor is degrading like these ones are then its weak at stock clocks as well and will have a shortened lifespan. So yes that does affect you. OC'ing is just a way to pick out these weak ones quicker but even at stock they will degrade faster then normal.
Though I still don't know why anyone would waste that much money on a extreme edition to leave it on stock. Beyond me.
I am done. You are too stuborn and don't care to listen at all. Can't even get it past your head that I haven't quoted/linked anything.
Stubborn, who me:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bun-Bun
Simple answer #1. Many folks aren't you and are beyond you and I. They don't overclock. They bought 980X because it had 6 cores and enough MHz.
Simple answer #2 Overclocking VOIDS the warranty! Please do it AT YOUR OWN risk.
# Root causes isn't established yet. Not enough processors have been tested for a controlled study.
Yes I know tweaking exposes weaknesses, never said it didn't! My only disagreement is no one *Should be* so sure of the root cause.
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
So the whole point of buying an unlocked processor is to have a big e-peen?
Im sorry but these processors are meant to be overclocked otherwise a i7 970 is just as good in this case :S
AFAIK it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Intel is just not guaranteeing stable operation when overclocked, they don't mention anything about invalidating the warranty.